OLED panels are the next big thing when it comes to TVs and other consumer
electronics from cameras to cell phones. The OLED screen promises more compact
dimensions, less power consumption and brighter images.

Samsung declined to comment on the commercial availability of TVs using the
31-inch OLED panel stating that the panel being available for retail purchase
would depend on TV makers’ plans. With the very high cost of the Sony XEL-1,
the first
commercially available OLED TV retailing for over $1,700 USD, the price for
a 31-inch Samsung panel equipped OLED TV is a frightening thought for many.
Samsung didn’t comment on potential pricing for TVs using its 31-inch OLED
panel.

Samsung says its new 31-inch OLED panel is only 4.3mm thick and uses less
than half the power required of a typical 32-inch TV. The panel’s lifespan is
35,000 hours, which is the best lifespan of existing AM-OLED panels.

Exactly how many of the panels Samsung will be able to produce is unknown.
Sony is limited to 2,000 of its XEL-1 11-inch OLED TVs per month because of
production limits for the OLED panels.

For them to know that it can last 35,000 hours means that this technology has been around for a fairly long time, right? LOL. Don't be suprised if you don't see that many hours out of it. It's just like hard drives. You'll never see 150 years of service out of the current hard drives rated for 1,400,000 hours. I don't know how to translate 35,000 hours into real world figures but using hard drives as an example, I would expect something like a couple years of service.

As pointed out, you are thinking in terms of current LCD tech. which does not apply here. Nonetheless, I think that the very short 35,000 hour estimate is very optimistic. I of course can not prove it, just like I can not disprove that a hard drive will last 150 years, but I think my point is a good one. Remember, the manufacturer only needs their product to last 365 days and then it is out of their hands. Whose problem is it after that? Guess.

This reminds me of my own LCD TV which is rated for something like 200,000 hours if I'm not mistaken. Well, from my previous experience with LCD's, I very seriously doubt that is possible. I bet I will be unhappy with the picture long before that, but even if I only get 40,000 hours out of it then it will have been worth it. By then, the picture will be quite dark, but by then I won't care.

Just bring OLED monitors with a 10 bit/pixel color capability and I will buy one for sure.

For future displays a 10 bit/pixel color capability is a must, I'l upgrade my actual LCD just for that and a fast response time better than actual 2 ms and faster refresh rates better than actual 60 Hz, 100 Hz should be a must as well.

Other than that a 19", 22" or 24" wide screen dimension is pretty much enough.

Using an old 20 GB HDD for installing Windows XP is completely wrong, first of all that 20 GB HDD has much more lower transfer rates than a 500 GB one just watching at the density of data it's 25 times lower so by using a 500 GB HDD your OS will boot much faster and work much faster when using the HD to load Windows files.

If u like lower partitions you could have made one on the 500 GB HDD and used it instead of the old 20 GB HDD, my primary partition is above 100 GB and I'm going to use a 320 one soon I could ass well use one of 500 GB or more.

It runs just fine, And I know the 500gb drive is faster, thats why I have the page file on it, it actually doesn't decrease performance all that much, if at all.By having my games, and the page file on it, I am actually reserving more performance for the 500gb drive, to speed up transfers etc, as it doesn't have the processor caching and whatnot, Why waste a perfectly good 20gb Hard drive?

You are right about that. Today a hard drive is the loudest component in a good PC (provided you take care of your video card and its typically loud fan). And that's a today's drive... even a few years old drives (e.g. my pair of "old" Maxtor 200G SATAs) are too loud to the point I don't want to use them any more. An old 20G drive must be creating quite a racket.

My 17" LG LCD monitor, which I bought back in 2003 is still chugging along. Granted, I'm not happy with the picture quality and response times, cause well....it's an old monitor. It still displays the same as the day I bought it, but when compared with new LCDs, it's just old tech.

I just use it as a primary monitor for my 12" notebook, whenever I decide to use the notebook at home.

A drive advertised with an MTBF of 1.2 million hours does not mean it is estimated to last 1.2 million hours. Like most people, you are confusing MTBF with life expectancy. The MTBF is the mean time between failures provided the device is replaced at the end of its life expectancy period even if it is still functional.

You make a good point, but let's be honest. (And this is not certainly directed at you, zpdixon) Do you really believe those manufacturer ratings? Let's say you replace your array of Seagate drives (w/ 5 year warranty) every year. Now, do you really believe that you will see 1,400,000 hours with only one failure? Mind you, that's 150 years with only one failure. If you believe those figures then I have a bridge to sell you. You would see hundreds of failures before you died of old age. So what good are these MTBF ratings that manufacturers give us? Absolutely nothing, just like the rating on this screen. Point is these manufacturers can claim pretty much anything and get away with it. If you believe these screens will last 35,000 hours than you are being naive.

I think the only reasonable thing we, the consumer, can do is to compare it to the equally bogus manufacturing ratings of LCD screens. That's not perfect, but what other choice is there? We can expect this screen to last a sixth of what a typical LCD screen does, and that's not long!